Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

The first warning bell..

    • 144 posts
    June 6, 2016 3:23 PM PDT

    Link to the post you are all going on about please? =)

    • 174 posts
    June 6, 2016 3:30 PM PDT

    There are other aspects that while a lot of detail was provided there is just not enough detail provided. Vehicles is just one such aspect. I am not in favor of someone being able to summon their canoe to travel a river when they encounter one and then summon a boat for ocean going travel when they encounter a lake or ocean. That is just way too dumb - so hopefully that is not what is going to be allowed. Equipping boats with weapons is also something I think becomes less immersive. I just can't see how a RPG MMO encourages ship-to-ship combat or ship to creature combat or ship to enemy fortress combat. I just don't like that aspect of "hey I have a RPG class and well, let's just engage in combat with a boat because that's why I want to play a D&D style RPG MMO." So while a lot of attention was given to vehicles there just wasn't enough attention given to it - and perhaps I am jumping the gun. But I would say there seems to be more of an "aghast" reaction to this than a "yahoo" reaction.

    Mounts, I suppose, are inevitable. I think the game could survive just fine without them but if the direction of MMOs is to go with mounts then I gues this is one aspect where Pantheon won't be all that different than the other MMOs out there and will actually be trying to be more like them. Which begs the question of porting and exactly how that is going to be a defining characteristic for a class when a mount, albeit slower, will also do the trick. That pretty much infers that of all the porting areas available there will only be a very few that will be utilizede, especially with mounts - so why even bother at all with all the rest? And the porting classes will be "umm thanks for giving me another porting destination that won't even be called up on account of mounts."

    I just think pets should be more as a class defining aspect rather than less of one - and by that I mean some classes can have them and some can't. Same with heals - some classes should be able to heal and some can't. Same with weapon damage - some classes can be able to equip certain weapons and some can't.

    So, for the information available, so far, I'll give it a thumbs down and not ask to have the aisle seat saved.

    • 607 posts
    June 6, 2016 3:34 PM PDT

    Hey all, sorry for taking some time to respond -- I was offline over the weekend.

    Looking back at what I wrote and your posts I defintely wasn't sufficiently clear -- sorry about that.

    Without a mount/vehicle you would definitely be at a disadvantage (after a certain level).

    Obviously a Summoner not summoning transient pets would be at a disadvantage.

    When it comes to other persistent pets that multiple classes could have, level up, collect, etc., things are a bit less defined (do note, as some of you did, that nothing I posted was set in stone yet).  

    Here's what we want and don't want:

    We don't want this to end up being a mercenary system.  In other words, the pet is just as good or almost as good as having another player grouped with you.  That would be contrary to Pantheon's foundation and messes up class interdependency and community big time.

    But we do want them to matter and be helpful if you choose to use them.  We don't want them to just be cosmetic.  Exactly how we balance that will rely on alpha and beta testing.

    Let me know if that helps and/or if there are additional concerns/quesitons.

    thanks all,

    -Brad

    edit: If we cannot set up a system where any class can interact and benefit from collecting pets that is more than just cosmetic, we'll likely ditch that part of the system.  Or at least make that part of it lower priority -- I've nothing against the cosmetic, but do feel compelled to put the majority of our development time into systems that truly affect the game (whether it be pets, weather, or whatever).


    This post was edited by Aradune at June 6, 2016 3:49 PM PDT
    • 156 posts
    June 6, 2016 3:36 PM PDT

    MINX said:

    Link to the post you are all going on about please? =)

     

    Pets and Pantheon. Its on the first page and like two posts below this one.

     

    I am not happy to see what was in that post from Brad. It sounds like every race will have a persistant pet. And it sounds like if I want to maximize my character I will have to use that pet. I am not happy at all of the prospect of having some stupid pet thingy following me around the world or seeing a million other people being followed around by their own stupid pet thingies. If this has to be in please have a setting to make them invisible. I played a paladin in EQ2 for a while and he had something like this for his diety. A little lion if i recall that gave me strength. I could turn it invisible so it was fine. I really just dont want to see this. I get pet classes but a pet world? Not interested.


    This post was edited by Sabot at June 6, 2016 3:37 PM PDT
    • 1012 posts
    June 6, 2016 3:40 PM PDT

    Problem is, if an idea is bad Dal, why waste development resources and time on it?

    It would be better to be told it's bad, change it or scrap it, and focus the small team elsewhere. Not saying this idea specifically is bad (again reserving final judgement until further clarification) but Brad asked for feedback and comments on the idea. He knew full well what he was getting into when he posted as evidenced by his disclaimer. And please Brad, keep sharing the design docs - it's better to get feedback now rather than when you put hundreds to thousands of design hours in and are told at that point to tweak it or scrap it.

    And Dal, we are all commenting because we care - not the alternative. Being silent on issues helps no one either. No idea, developer, or person is perfect and can't be constructively critiqued and improved upon. He (developers) doesn't have to take our feedback and change their ideas, but it's better to get honesty now than be placated to.

    *Edit - Grammar and posted the same time as Aradune - thanks for the clarification.


    This post was edited by Raidan at June 6, 2016 3:46 PM PDT
    • 607 posts
    June 6, 2016 3:42 PM PDT

    Raidan said: Problem is, if an idea is bad Dal, why waste development resources and time on it? It would be better to be told it's bad, change it or scrap it, and focus the small team elsewhere. Not saying this idea specifically is bad (again reserving final judgement until further clarification) but Brad asked for feedback and comments on the idea. He knew full well what he was getting into when he posted as evidenced by his disclaimer. And please Brad, keep sharing the design docs - it's better to get feedback now until you put hundreds to thousands of design hours in and are told at that point to tweak it or scrap it. And Dal, we are all commenting because we care - not the alternative. Being silent on issues helps no one either. No idea, developer, or person is perfect and can't be constructively critiqued and improved upon. He (developers) doesn't have to take our feedback and change their ideas, but it's better to get honesty now than be placated to.

    Very well said!

    • 208 posts
    June 6, 2016 3:53 PM PDT

    I too shudder at the thought of seeing everyone dragging a pet to the dungeon and definitely hope I don't see that happen. 

    However I wouldn't mind seeing them use for noncombative purposes like scouting, gathering materials or mobile storage. 

     

    I can do without vanity pets however, they just don't do it for me. 

    • 44 posts
    June 6, 2016 3:56 PM PDT

    Yeah, I don't mind pets as pack mules and mounts and such but I don't want to have to have a pet in battle to be effective in a group because it ups my DD by some random %. If I wanted to play a pet class I would do so.

    • 858 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:01 PM PDT

    I would be guessing pets more like Wizards familiar etc, not a combat pet but some sort of buff thing i guess.  I dont like the vision in my head of everyone running around with pets whether they fight or not, but i cant imagine all the classes having combat pets.  

    Not a fan of any type of pet unless you are one of the maybe 2 or 3 classes that specifically has one like summoner etc

    • 607 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:02 PM PDT

    Driven said:

    Yeah, I don't mind pets as pack mules and mounts and such but I don't want to have to have a pet in battle to be effective in a group because it ups my DD by some random %. If I wanted to play a pet class I would do so.

    Yep, the vast majority of the persistent pets would not be battle type pets but useful for other things (storage, buffs, etc.)?  In fact, what could they do?  Would be great to get some ideas from you.  Like I've said, I'm not keen on putting a lot of effort into purely vanity/cosmetic pets.  Part of Pantheon is that Stuff Matters(TM).  Weather matters.  What item you're using matters.  Contending with the Environment matters. Exploration and mana climates matter.  Group class composition matters.  How you appear to others reflects the items you are wearing and wielding.  Etc.


    This post was edited by Aradune at June 6, 2016 4:04 PM PDT
    • 156 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:05 PM PDT

    Raidan said:

    Problem is, if an idea is bad Dal, why waste development resources and time on it?

    It would be better to be told it's bad, change it or scrap it, and focus the small team elsewhere. Not saying this idea specifically is bad (again reserving final judgement until further clarification) but Brad asked for feedback and comments on the idea. He knew full well what he was getting into when he posted as evidenced by his disclaimer. And please Brad, keep sharing the design docs - it's better to get feedback now rather than when you put hundreds to thousands of design hours in and are told at that point to tweak it or scrap it.

    And Dal, we are all commenting because we care - not the alternative. Being silent on issues helps no one either. No idea, developer, or person is perfect and can't be constructively critiqued and improved upon. He (developers) doesn't have to take our feedback and change their ideas, but it's better to get honesty now than be placated to.

    *Edit - Grammar and posted the same time as Aradune - thanks for the clarification.

     

    I also appreciate that this kind of information is being shared. Good or bad it's great knowing that the developer is willing to let us have a peek at the thought process. I can understand how hard it must be to be working on somthing that isn't even complete, taking the time to share your ideas with your intended audience, and taking the chance that what you are sharing isn't well recieved. I appreciate everything that the VR team does to keep us informed.

    • 1988 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:11 PM PDT

    Pets have a place.  With their specific classes. It is a choice to choose that class.  Part of the reason why some people don't choose one of those classes is because they don't want to play with a pet. 

    Some classes are expected to have pets, but hopefully they aren't good enough that the player feels required to use them all the time.  They should only be useful situationally..enchanter, shaman etc.

    One of the things I dislike the most when I go back and play EQ these days is that every class has a pet, familiar, that helps them solo a bit.  I played a wizard in "new" EQ and it felt like the same gameplay as when I played a mage in early EQ.  It is ridiculous.  You can't get away from playing a pet class in the current EQ.

     

    Many people consider pets a negative thing.  Please put a good amount of time in developing pets for the summoner...and eventually the Necro.  Other than that don't waste the man hours. 

    People who want to play pet classes should have the option.  There doesn't need to be more than a couple different options for that segment of the player base.

    ...and I had 3.5 years of played time on my mage in EQ.  I'm a pet person.  I am very aware that it is not a style of play that many...or most?...people prefer.


    This post was edited by philo at June 6, 2016 4:16 PM PDT
    • 375 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:14 PM PDT

    Damn time-outs... Brad my attempt was to shift the conversation into the consequences of such an implementation. I got you just fine the first time :)

    But anyway.. again: You just told me that you "don't want them to be just cosmetic". Well what does that mean? No more dilemmas is what. If benefits, then a 'must' and as such, no longer a choice. We'd all be forced in having pets out; all of us. And if every class out there has pets out? Can you really not see the issue here?

    Fluff and vanity work fine as they are. Each and every game that offers them manages to incentivise players into collecting them just fine. Without making them affect combat. Do not change this, no need. Collecting will work just as well in Pantheon without 'extras'.

    You can up the ante or go for a different approach, yes, (if this is the reasoning?), but do so where it is needed, not in this. Because in this? Going the way you are thinking entails dilluting the very basis of what we're all here for. We have had classes for a reason, we have had pet and non-pet classes for a reason. We are literally talking two different MMOs here. I strongly urge you to reconsider.

    On an honest level? I swear this scares me. Got no idea how you (be it plural or singular) reached this decision, but i do know you have most definitely failed to consider what it entails. Am not here for Pony online, or Hello Kitty online. Do not add weights on me that are not needed. I want pets, i got at the least 3 classes to choose from and 6 specialisations in between them. Do not force me further. Not when i) you do not need to, ii) in doing so, you ruin the basis of your own game. I know i only just mentioned this, but it bears repeating:

    We are talking two different MMOs here. I implore you to think this through once again. And my apologies if i insist. It is just that coming from you? Literally shocking. No offense.


    This post was edited by Aenra at June 6, 2016 4:26 PM PDT
    • 333 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:17 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    Yep, the vast majority of the persistent pets would not be battle type pets but useful for other things (storage, buffs, etc.)?  In fact, what could they do?  Would be great to get some ideas from you.  Like I've said, I'm not keen on putting a lot of effort into purely vanity/cosmetic pets.  Part of Pantheon is that Stuff Matters(TM).  Weather matters.  What item you're using matters.  Contending with the Environment matters. Exploration and mana climates matter.  Group class composition matters.  How you appear to others reflects the items you are wearing and wielding.  Etc.

    Mounts and combat pets i get; they make sense, but If some are nothing more than buffs then just make it a buff rather than spending the effort on a pet.  If it's storage, do you mean something summoned to carry additional items ala AD&D's Tenser's Floating Disc?  If so, just make them expanable temporary inventory slot(s).  Without a little more information on where you are considering going with these ideas, some of these just kind of seem unnecessary (no offense intended).


    This post was edited by Reht at June 6, 2016 4:24 PM PDT
    • 298 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:22 PM PDT

    It seems like more of an aesthetic problem than anything else. If there is an option for anyone to get a combat pet on any class in a mmo, you can bet that anyone and everyone will get one. Even if they are a small bonus, to a mmo player they are practically a requiremnt to get. So aesthetically you will see 95% of all players with a pet following them, a group of 6 with 6 pets. Personally I don't think it would be uncool but it would totally change the theme of the game. In the other topic I said you might want to change the name of the game to Petheon instead of Pantheon. It may break the immersion/theme of the game and make it a totally different mmo.

    Mabye with testing there could be ways to fit it in. Like say you had to make a trade off in order to use one. In EQII you had a concentration bar of 5 points. Buffs, self-buffs, and pets would take 0-3 points of concentration. So at times you would have to choose which to use and which not to use. So in Pantheon if a combat pet required 2-3 points of concentration maybe a tank class would say it's not worth doing in a group because they lose some really important buffs or group protection spells. Maybe other classes like a Ranger would find it a more favorable trade off. This is just an example, and I don't think from the twitch stream that Pantheon had a concentration system. Something like this to try to discourage some classes from using them might be hard to balance and implement. Not sure which topic to put this in so...

    • 1988 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:28 PM PDT

    If pets are being used for "non-combat" situations, buffs, storage etc.  I think what it might come down to is that people don't want the clutter on their screen of everyone having a non-combat pet out.

    This is one of those times it might be best to keep it simple.  We all want the game to work out fantastically but sometimes I think some of these ideas...bells and whistles...might end up driving people away.  We are a pretty specific target audience. 

    Sometimes it feels like the target demographic is being forgotten a bit.

    Don't try to get fancy.  Keep it simple.  If you build it they will come. 

     

    • 375 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:29 PM PDT

    Pantz said:

    If there is an option for anyone to get a combat pet on any class in a mmo, you can bet that anyone and everyone will get one.

    i) Please cease talking for "everyone". Presumptuous, immature, unrealistic. And that's being kind.

    ii) You are already contradicting yourself. Unless even worse, you failed to grasp the issue at hand.  We are not talking about "options" here, Brad mentions pets with actual benefits. This elevates them to a 'must'. To a non-option. No choice when the guy next you has 'x' more and the game is group-heavy; this is what benefits and competitive and online amount to.


    This post was edited by Aenra at June 6, 2016 4:31 PM PDT
    • 194 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:33 PM PDT

    Raidan said:

    Problem is, if an idea is bad Dal, why waste development resources and time on it?

    It would be better to be told it's bad, change it or scrap it, and focus the small team elsewhere. Not saying this idea specifically is bad (again reserving final judgement until further clarification) but Brad asked for feedback and comments on the idea. He knew full well what he was getting into when he posted as evidenced by his disclaimer. And please Brad, keep sharing the design docs - it's better to get feedback now rather than when you put hundreds to thousands of design hours in and are told at that point to tweak it or scrap it.

    And Dal, we are all commenting because we care - not the alternative. Being silent on issues helps no one either. No idea, developer, or person is perfect and can't be constructively critiqued and improved upon. He (developers) doesn't have to take our feedback and change their ideas, but it's better to get honesty now than be placated to.

    *Edit - Grammar and posted the same time as Aradune - thanks for the clarification.

     

    Raidan,


    I will call you out by name as you injected me into your last post. I think you misunderstood what I was merely trying to state we all need to keep our wits about us and not take something posted at face value until clarified like brad has done in the last few post. First let me clarify for you I didn't say do not critique the development process nor did I say that no one cared about the development process.

    I think we are all passionate about this game and we are hoping to have an A+++ winner here when it goes to launch. Perhaps the title of this post had me on edge because there were things being said, that shouldn't have been till we had some clarification. Nor did we have all of Ardunes thoughts and where the design docs were pointing.

    I was trying to keep a level head with my last post because the passions can ignite into a raging fire here and people get burned. As I have seen in a few areas in the forums it can get that way. I wasn't trying to belittle anyone either if that's how it seemed to come across.

    I truly believe in critiquing the development process but constructively and allow the developers to set the basic rules how the game should be played with input from us when they bounce ideas and see how well they are received from us the community.

    I also believe in the Alpha and beta testing are the most crucial and important phase of the development as this avoids the having to placate to the community as you put it.

    I hopefully clarified my post and my response as..... I believe in this team and their vision to bring us a awesome and worthy game that many of us desire.

    Dal once again steps off his soap box and bows.

    • 156 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:35 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    Driven said:

    Yeah, I don't mind pets as pack mules and mounts and such but I don't want to have to have a pet in battle to be effective in a group because it ups my DD by some random %. If I wanted to play a pet class I would do so.

    Yep, the vast majority of the persistent pets would not be battle type pets but useful for other things (storage, buffs, etc.)?  In fact, what could they do?  Would be great to get some ideas from you.  Like I've said, I'm not keen on putting a lot of effort into purely vanity/cosmetic pets.  Part of Pantheon is that Stuff Matters(TM).  Weather matters.  What item you're using matters.  Contending with the Environment matters. Exploration and mana climates matter.  Group class composition matters.  How you appear to others reflects the items you are wearing and wielding.  Etc.

    OK, having them as storage might be good. Could we have a feature that makes a kind of camp or base of operations? A group makes their "camp" outside of a dungeon and has thier pets stay there. Those pets can be used to hold your extra gear or other items that you have but dont want to bring with you into the dungeon. This way they have a use and are not cluttering up things. You could return to the camp from time to time to offload some things or pick up other things. Maybe you need that extra set of armor because you died and are on a CR. Maybe you run out to get another weapon because you found something inside that is vulnerable to this other weapon type.

    This could open up a whole new set of things they could be used for that I for one would see as useful but not game breaking or unappealing visually.

    • 333 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:35 PM PDT

    If you want to see what everyone using a pet (not mount or combat pet) is like, go play Neverwinter for a while.  Everyone can use a mercenary, ioun stone, etc. and they don't count towards group size, so your group goes from 5 to 10 instantly (Neverwinter group is 5).  I know you don't plan on them being mercenaries, but the principle is the same; they will be graphics taking up space on a screen.

    • 375 posts
    June 6, 2016 4:46 PM PDT

    It is not just that, although it alone should suffice, lol..

    It's that, well.. No offense, but look at Brad's post. "We will try to balance them". Balance is in re-iterating.. stage 3.. what about stage 1? Did anyone sit down to think what it means when you tell people "we will make a new EQ, standard, old school, the stuff that matters" and then move on to announce "we want pets for all classes"?

    We have moved on to the mainstream. From flufff, to companions, to immershun, to cutie pie. And at the expanse of strict, separate, distrinctly d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-t classes (ie not just in function, but also in behaviour, in appearance and presence). There was a reason i always chose a necro or a coercer and Pete or Mary always chose a non-pet class. A reason good and valid enough to have lasted for twenty years.

    Need we really analyse why that is? Or more importantly, (should have been self evident guys..) why pets for all ruins it? And if somebody decided 'screw that, we will do away with it'.. well again no offense, but you don't say that a year later. As the saying goes in my country, good business makes good friends. I did my part of the transaction (ie paying) in expectation of an oldschool MMO. Not in expectation of a mainstream oldschool-wannabe. They really are two different games.

    (again, i want fluff, i want vanity [remember my insistence for appearance tabs?], i want collectibles. But as that; tertiary, non-combat related activities. Just in case anyone misinterprets my complaints here as some by-product of an aversion of mine)


    This post was edited by Aenra at June 6, 2016 4:55 PM PDT
    • 63 posts
    June 6, 2016 5:14 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    When it comes to other persistent pets that multiple classes could have, level up, collect, etc., things are a bit less defined (do note, as some of you did, that nothing I posted was set in stone yet).  

    Do we really want this? Persistent pets that level up or collect? This sounds gimmicky and mimics the modern mmo's we are trying to avoid here. Honestly, this is disappointing to hear if this is the direction the development team decides to take.

    Aradune said:

    But we do want them to matter and be helpful if you choose to use them.  We don't want them to just be cosmetic.  Exactly how we balance that will rely on alpha and beta testing.

    This would seem to open up a world where everyone has a pet, as others have stated here. If you receive buffs or benefits at all from these persistent pets then soon everyone will adopt them unless actively boycotting the system. 

     

    Aradune said:

    edit: If we cannot set up a system where any class can interact and benefit from collecting pets that is more than just cosmetic, we'll likely ditch that part of the system.  Or at least make that part of it lower priority -- I've nothing against the cosmetic, but do feel compelled to put the majority of our development time into systems that truly affect the game (whether it be pets, weather, or whatever).

    I hope the team revisits the drawing board on the persistent pets idea. Class or race specific mounts seem okay within this system, but granted benefits to players who use the other variation of persistent pets is more or less forcing them upon the players. 

     

    We have come to Pantheon to avoid these types of gameplay implementations. Unless you can really sell us on why this would be good for the game and how they will not become annoyances on-screen then I am inclined to say scrap this specific pet implementation altogether. 

    • 63 posts
    June 6, 2016 5:29 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    Yep, the vast majority of the persistent pets would not be battle type pets but useful for other things (storage, buffs, etc.)?  In fact, what could they do?  Would be great to get some ideas from you.

    Persistent pets belong to specific classes that have lore-driven reasons for having them. It is hard to extend this to specific races-- imagine in a believable world where all [insert some race] naturally are accompanied by [insert some pet/animal/entity]. The only way I can see that working is if that entity is a diety/elemental/spiritually relevant to the race. Which if that were the case, it would feel more comfortable putting that in the transient pet section.

    I honestly do not see much good in being generous about providing persistent pets to characters outside of specific classes. Some sort of pack mule would make the most sense out of the persistent pets mentioned, but do we really want everyone to have a pack mule summoned? Sounds immersion breaking. 

     

    • 113 posts
    June 6, 2016 5:44 PM PDT

    Feyshtey said:

    werzul said:

    @yarnila i dont think anyone is reading between the lines. brad said everyone can have pets, of there are all sorts... it seems logical that 'anyone' can have any kind of pet, if they so choose.

    when the lead game designer says 'pantheon will be a group based game.' we believe it without any sort of twisting of words - no one says maybe this is soloable, maybe that is, etc...we accept it is truth.

    why not take at face value when he says that everyone will have pets, of all sorts, they are a big part of the game,  and NOT using a pet will put one at a disadvantage?

    edit" btw love the show

    Please provide a quote that says every class can have every pet. That doesnt exist in that post, or anywhere that I'm aware of. You are projecting a fear into the statements. The closest it comes is that certain pet types would be available to all races and/or classes, the most obvious (and specifically pointed out) example of this would be vehicles. 

    I am taking precisely what was stated at face value, and not one ounce more. And that's sort of the whole point in this whole conversation. 

     

    the "gotta collect em all" part of Brads post on the subject would seem to be a fairly strong indiciator of that.

    • 113 posts
    June 6, 2016 5:46 PM PDT

    Aenra said:

    It is not just that, although it alone should suffice, lol..

    It's that, well.. No offense, but look at Brad's post. "We will try to balance them". Balance is in re-iterating.. stage 3.. what about stage 1? Did anyone sit down to think what it means when you tell people "we will make a new EQ, standard, old school, the stuff that matters" and then move on to announce "we want pets for all classes"?

    We have moved on to the mainstream. From flufff, to companions, to immershun, to cutie pie. And at the expanse of strict, separate, distrinctly d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-t classes (ie not just in function, but also in behaviour, in appearance and presence). There was a reason i always chose a necro or a coercer and Pete or Mary always chose a non-pet class. A reason good and valid enough to have lasted for twenty years.

    Need we really analyse why that is? Or more importantly, (should have been self evident guys..) why pets for all ruins it? And if somebody decided 'screw that, we will do away with it'.. well again no offense, but you don't say that a year later. As the saying goes in my country, good business makes good friends. I did my part of the transaction (ie paying) in expectation of an oldschool MMO. Not in expectation of a mainstream oldschool-wannabe. They really are two different games.

    (again, i want fluff, i want vanity [remember my insistence for appearance tabs?], i want collectibles. But as that; tertiary, non-combat related activities. Just in case anyone misinterprets my complaints here as some by-product of an aversion of mine)

     

    well said